Sentences with phrase «in product liability litigation as»

He has substantial experience in product liability litigation as well, having handled lawsuits involving a variety of products, including airplanes, helicopters, turbine and piston aircraft engines, grade - crossing warning systems, racquetball safety eyewear, farm equipment, multipiece truck wheels, automobile tires, chainsaws, playground equipment, and rigging equipment for stunt and sailing applications.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

Many factors could cause BlackBerry's actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward - looking statements, including, without limitation: BlackBerry's ability to enhance its current products and services, or develop new products and services in a timely manner or at competitive prices, including risks related to new product introductions; risks related to BlackBerry's ability to mitigate the impact of the anticipated decline in BlackBerry's infrastructure access fees on its consolidated revenue by developing an integrated services and software offering; intense competition, rapid change and significant strategic alliances within BlackBerry's industry; BlackBerry's reliance on carrier partners and distributors; risks associated with BlackBerry's foreign operations, including risks related to recent political and economic developments in Venezuela and the impact of foreign currency restrictions; risks relating to network disruptions and other business interruptions, including costs, potential liabilities, lost revenues and reputational damage associated with service interruptions; risks related to BlackBerry's ability to implement and to realize the anticipated benefits of its CORE program; BlackBerry's ability to maintain or increase its cash balance; security risks; BlackBerry's ability to attract and retain key personnel; risks related to intellectual property rights; BlackBerry's ability to expand and manage BlackBerry ® World ™; risks related to the collection, storage, transmission, use and disclosure of confidential and personal information; BlackBerry's ability to manage inventory and asset risk; BlackBerry's reliance on suppliers of functional components for its products and risks relating to its supply chain; BlackBerry's ability to obtain rights to use software or components supplied by third parties; BlackBerry's ability to successfully maintain and enhance its brand; risks related to government regulations, including regulations relating to encryption technology; BlackBerry's ability to continue to adapt to recent board and management changes and headcount reductions; reliance on strategic alliances with third - party network infrastructure developers, software platform vendors and service platform vendors; BlackBerry's reliance on third - party manufacturers; potential defects and vulnerabilities in BlackBerry's products; risks related to litigation, including litigation claims arising from BlackBerry's practice of providing forward - looking guidance; potential charges relating to the impairment of intangible assets recorded on BlackBerry's balance sheet; risks as a result of actions of activist shareholders; government regulation of wireless spectrum and radio frequencies; risks related to economic and geopolitical conditions; risks associated with acquisitions; foreign exchange risks; and difficulties in forecasting BlackBerry's financial results given the rapid technological changes, evolving industry standards, intense competition and short product life cycles that characterize the wireless communications industry.

John has served as an expert witness regarding issues in asbestos litigation; he is a frequent speaker and commentator on products liability litigation; and he has coordinated clients» lobbying efforts in the U.S. House and Senate to create national asbestos legislation.

Described as a «reliable partner providing an excellent service level», Hogan Lovells International LLP handles a broad range of contentious matters including commercial, corporate and contractual litigation and is particularly well versed in product liability.

With deep experience in product liability matters and class action litigation, including catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, as well as consumer fraud, he represents national and international companies, including manufacturers of motor vehicles, power tools, pharmaceuticals, clothing, glass products, outdoor power equipment, and industrial machinery.

We regularly defend automobile, heavy truck, bus, locomotive, and aircraft manufacturers — as well as their component suppliers — in high - stakes product liability, commercial, and catastrophic injury litigation.

Our firm is respected as a leader in products liability litigation and has a solid history of successfully representing plaintiffs in pharmaceutical litigation.

Partner Lewis S. «Mike» Eidson is nationally recognized in the field of product liability and served as the national co-lead counsel in the Ford Explorer / Firestone tire litigation.

Kelsey's practice focuses primarily on civil litigation, including defense of personal injury and product liability claims as well as representation in real property and commercial disputes.

We routinely handle cases in areas of law such as catastrophic / excess liability; ERISA; class actions; construction practices; general commercial litigation; insurance coverage and bad faith; insurance fraud; insurance professional liability; life health and disability; medical professional liability; product liability; subrogation; and toxic and environmental torts.

Before working for our firm, Patrick Montgomery worked in Birmingham as a partner for another law firm defending businesses in civil litigation covering wrongful death, catastrophic personal injury, breach of contract, product liability, automobile and trucking negligence, and premises liability.

He is honoured to have been selected as a Lexpert Ranked Lawyer for Product liability and selected by his peers for Best Lawyers 2017 for Insurance, as well as in Expert Guides in the areas of Litigation, Product Liability, Insurance and Reiliability and selected by his peers for Best Lawyers 2017 for Insurance, as well as in Expert Guides in the areas of Litigation, Product Liability, Insurance and ReiLiability, Insurance and Reinsurance.

During his 21 - year legal career, Mr. Goldberg has litigated hundreds of cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States involving claims of retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, fraud, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, as well as commercial contract disputes, civil RICO, ERISA, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, corporate governance disputes, minority shareholder disputes, partnership disputes, Madoff counseling and defense, advancement and indemnification proceedings, whistleblower actions (SOX and CEPA), executive compensation counseling, litigation, and arbitration, international litigation and arbitration, antitrust litigation and arbitration, products liability litigation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, and securities fraud.

I started in the legal industry as a Database / Litigation Analyst for a large international firm in the Midwest that specialized in product liability lLitigation Analyst for a large international firm in the Midwest that specialized in product liability litigationlitigation.

She has been internationally recognized as one of the leading lawyers in the area of product liability litigation throughout Asia and was recognized as a prominent female lawyer by Global Business Magazine's Women in Law Report - Top Women Lawyers 2012.

His environmental and tort litigation experience includes dozens of products liability actions in California State and Federal District Courts and multi-district litigation proceedings in the Southern District of New York that arise out of MTBE contamination of drinking water aquifers, as well as actions brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act («CERCLA»), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act («RCRA»), California Proposition 65, the Clean Air Act, and various state and federal criminal laws, environmental laws, or tort dliability actions in California State and Federal District Courts and multi-district litigation proceedings in the Southern District of New York that arise out of MTBE contamination of drinking water aquifers, as well as actions brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act («CERCLA»), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act («RCRA»), California Proposition 65, the Clean Air Act, and various state and federal criminal laws, environmental laws, or tort dLiability Act («CERCLA»), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act («RCRA»), California Proposition 65, the Clean Air Act, and various state and federal criminal laws, environmental laws, or tort doctrines.

Jeffrey J. Parker is a partner in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP's Los Angeles office, where he specializes in business, products liability, and complex environmental litigation through trial and appeal, as well as environmental law.

Based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Wolfe concentrates his practice on discovery and e-discovery issues, as well as on class actions and product liability litigation.

Langdon & Emison's reputation as a national leader in auto product liability litigation comes from 30 years of taking on the world's largest auto manufacturers in courtrooms from coast to coast, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

He represents corporations and individuals in highly complex civil litigation in both the federal and state courts as well as administrative tribunals in many areas including business torts, corporate and employment law, product and professional liability, and defamation.

White - collar criminal litigation is one area in which practitioners have not been as quick to adopt the use of litigation graphics as in other litigation areas such as intellectual property, environmental litigation, or products liability.

MG+M attorneys have decades of experience successfully litigating high - stakes maritime and marine casualty claims, as well as maritime - related personal injury, wrongful death, commercial litigation and contracts, insurance practice and policy, and product liability claims, from coast - to - coast and everywhere in between.

The Best Lawyers in America by Woodward White, Inc. listed Banks as the «2016 Birmingham Lawyer of the Year for Product Liability Litigation Defendants»

In 2016, she was appointed as a PSC member by the Honorable Kathryn Vratil in In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Power Morcellator Products Liability Litigation (D. Kansas, MDL No. 2652) and appointed as a PSC member by the Honorable Freda Wolfson in In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (D. New Jersey, MDL No. 2738In 2016, she was appointed as a PSC member by the Honorable Kathryn Vratil in In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Power Morcellator Products Liability Litigation (D. Kansas, MDL No. 2652) and appointed as a PSC member by the Honorable Freda Wolfson in In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (D. New Jersey, MDL No. 2738in In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Power Morcellator Products Liability Litigation (D. Kansas, MDL No. 2652) and appointed as a PSC member by the Honorable Freda Wolfson in In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (D. New Jersey, MDL No. 2738In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Power Morcellator Products Liability Litigation (D. Kansas, MDL No. 2652) and appointed as a PSC member by the Honorable Freda Wolfson in In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (D. New Jersey, MDL No. 2738in In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (D. New Jersey, MDL No. 2738In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (D. New Jersey, MDL No. 2738).

In his role as practice head he led a team covering multiple areas of expertise, including product liability litigation, product - related B2B disputes, product safety and regulatory compliance issues, and international product recalls.

We focus on building key relationships with law firms and managing legal affairs as best we can and the type of legal work that Navistar Canada is involved in doesn't really warrant a large department because it's defendant - side litigation on the product liability side and some corporate - driven transactions, be it tax or finance, that are not routine.

«The Indianapolis attorneys joining our firm, as well as our attorneys from other offices who will spend significant time in Indianapolis, are veterans of the legal industry, with particular strengths in litigation, regulatory and transactional health care, financial services, intellectual property, product liability and toxic tort defense, and middle - market consultation, augmenting some of our signature areas of practice.»

Serving as a member of a trial team that obtained a defense verdict in class action products liability litigation involving home heating oil.

His particular expertise is in commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as in national and international litigation, with a particular focus on cartel damages, product liability, unfair competition, intellectual property (IP) and international distribution matters.

Luzarraga is also a first chair trial lawyer in product liability and personal injury cases involving automotive companies, consumer product manufacturers, trace benzene and asbestos litigation as well as commercial litigation involving contract disputes, consumer claims, and professional liability.

Ted's product liability work has included leading successful defense efforts in many of the largest and most complex tort litigations in the U.S. over the past three decades, as well as in many individual cases.

As stated in Judge Edmon's order John Gomez, among other attorneys and their law firms have been recognized as, «having considerable experience in complex litigation» and «extraordinary knowledge in the field of products liability»As stated in Judge Edmon's order John Gomez, among other attorneys and their law firms have been recognized as, «having considerable experience in complex litigation» and «extraordinary knowledge in the field of products liability»as, «having considerable experience in complex litigation» and «extraordinary knowledge in the field of products liability».

Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP — selected as a Metropolitan New York first tier law firm by U.S. News - Best Lawyers / Best Law Firms in the fields of Medical Malpractice Defense, Products Liability Defense, Personal Injury Defense and Health Care Law — is a leading litigation firm with one of the most talented and experienced groups of trial partners in New York.

He has also served as National Coordinating Liability Counsel for a major international insurance company with reference to the defense of products liability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District LiLiability Counsel for a major international insurance company with reference to the defense of products liability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District Liliability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District Litigation.

acted as Liaison Counsel in In re: Oral Sodium Phosphate Solution - Based Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2066 (Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division) which resulted in a substantial confidential settlement on behalf of hundreds of individual claimantin In re: Oral Sodium Phosphate Solution - Based Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2066 (Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division) which resulted in a substantial confidential settlement on behalf of hundreds of individual claimantIn re: Oral Sodium Phosphate Solution - Based Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2066 (Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division) which resulted in a substantial confidential settlement on behalf of hundreds of individual claimantin a substantial confidential settlement on behalf of hundreds of individual claimants.

Two of the firm's partners were selected as «Lawyers of the Year» in their practice area: John F. Mariani in West Palm Beach for Product Liability Litigation — Defendants and Dilip Patel for Immigration Law.

J. Owen Todd, a partner in the firm, serves as a mediator and arbitrator in the resolution of civil disputes, including matters of product liability, environmental issues, complex commercial litigation, employment discrimination and harassment, patent and copyright claims, divorce, probate litigation, and personal injury claims.

As a former partner in a civil litigation defense firm, David defended various Fortune 500 companies in both personal injury and commercial litigation, with an emphasis on product liability and trucking cases.

Mr. Geiger represents business clients in all types of disputes, such as product liability (including pharmaceuticals and medical devices), toxic torts, medical and genetics negligence, breach of privacy, other personal injury claims, class actions, multidistrict litigation, governmental actions, insurance litigation, breaches of contract, allegations of fraud and unfair trade practices, commercial warranty disputes and intellectual property controversies.

Their experience in personal injury, business litigation, products liability and class actions provide integral background for fire cases, as does their direct experience handling claims on behalf of victims who suffered personal injury and property damages because of fires.

In September 2014, the firm was recognized by the BTI Consulting Group as a «Standout» in Complex Commercial Litigation and Employment Litigation, ranking among the top 22 and top 18 law firms in the country, respectively, and for its strength in Product Liability Litigation and Securities and Finance LitigatioIn September 2014, the firm was recognized by the BTI Consulting Group as a «Standout» in Complex Commercial Litigation and Employment Litigation, ranking among the top 22 and top 18 law firms in the country, respectively, and for its strength in Product Liability Litigation and Securities and Finance Litigatioin Complex Commercial Litigation and Employment Litigation, ranking among the top 22 and top 18 law firms in the country, respectively, and for its strength in Product Liability Litigation and Securities and Finance Litigatioin the country, respectively, and for its strength in Product Liability Litigation and Securities and Finance Litigatioin Product Liability Litigation and Securities and Finance Litigation.

At Conroy Simberg, we are proud of our firm's nationwide reputation for delivering highly effective defense counsel in asbestos litigation matters, as well as mass tort and products liability cases, including silica claims.

Prior to joining Dowd Bennett, Stacy worked as an associate in the St. Louis office of a large defense firm where he practiced in the areas of corporate defense, product liability, and toxic tort litigation.

The firm firm was recognized as Best Lawyers ® «Best Law Firms» by U.S. News & World Report and received the prestigious Tier One ranking for San Diego in the in the categories of Commercial Litigation; Litigation — Construction; Litigation — Real Estate; Mass Torts Litigation / Class Actions; Personal Injury Litigation — Plaintiffs and Product Liability Litigation — Plaintiffs.

Mr. O'Brien currently is serving as a member of the Executive Committee for the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in MDL No. 2750, In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigatioin MDL No. 2750, In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability LitigatioIn re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation.

Our attorneys are consistently recognized as Lawyer of the Year and Top Lawyer in their respective practice areas, earning spots on the «Best Lawyers» and «Super Lawyers» rosters for their experience in personal injury, product liability, trucking accident, railroad and mass torts litigation.

He currently serves as co-lead counsel in the In re: Gadolinium Based Contrast Agent Litigation, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Abilify Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the In re: Gadolinium Based Contrast Agent Litigation, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Abilify Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettIn re: Gadolinium Based Contrast Agent Litigation, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Abilify Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Abilify Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the In re: Abilify Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettIn re: Abilify Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the In re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettIn re: Benicar Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettIn re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee in the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the In re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettIn re: Fresenius Granuflo / Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettin the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Since that time, the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys» Association has grown to approximately 1000 members who practice in multiple areas of Civil Defense Litigation such as: Tort and Personal Injury; Product Liability; Commercial Law; Labor and Employment; Medical Malpractice; Workers» Compensation; Healthcare and ERISA; Insurance Law and Coverage; and Governmental and Municipal Liability.